Why are y'all so terrified of those beach apes?

You have been warned repeatedly about posting this stuff in the science forums on this site. Repeatedly.

And you still keep doing it.

Your link fails to actually discuss surfer's ear and is more intent on looking at the gait of early hominids. Surfer's ear is a painful condition that can lead to hearing loss and other hearing and ear problems if left untreated. The bony growth's trap water in the ear canal, leading to an increased risk of infection, which can damage hearing. It is more commonly found in swimmers and surfers in colder regions and became more prevalent after the invention of bodysuits, which allowed surfers and swimmers to take to colder water. There is no benefit to surfer's ear. On the contrary, it is a detriment.

Surfer's ear is a bony growth that requires surgical intervention to treat. That should be enough of a giant hint, but alas, it is not. And it is not just cold water, but cold water and cold wind can result in these bony growths.

Your link provides no evidence that this is an evolutionary trait, nor does it provide any evidence that this is a throwback that settles the "aquatic ape theory". At all.

Please stop posting this rubbish in the science subsection.

Click to expand...

This is exactly what I'm talking about. That is the pigheadedness in a nutshell. You're not reading those links at all, are you?

It is proven. Has been for decades. We're an old beach ape. It is pathetic how you're still chastizing those that dare to tell you. When push comes to shove, you flee science. No matter how much censorship you conduct here, the aquatic idea will never go away. 'Cause it is very likely true, and how is that my fault?

GuestGuest Advertisement

We have an ongoing war against creationists vying to pull the West back into the dark ages. And it is disgusting to see voices of free science conduct themselves exactly the same way they do. Distorting an inconvenient truth for the agenda of censoring away its existence.

GuestGuest Advertisement

What do you want from me? I'm just supposed to let you go quietly into that night? None of you are giving me that straight answer. PZ Myers couldn't give me a straight answer either. How exactly are you helping me to see the error of my ways?

If you're still not telling me why it's so obviously wrong, how can I not see these constant relegations of a very important topic as censorship? How is this scientific discourse?

I wish I could meet a Christian who would proselytize to me, but they keep running away from me. I wanna talk to y'all!
- Bill Hicks

No mermaids are being suggested by the aquatic ideas. No mermaidswhat so ever! Just as there are no firebreathing dragons in the studies of dinosaurs either!

But how should you know? You're being told you don't have to read the actual sources! Not to know, what is actually being said?

"My thesis is that a branch of this primitive ape-stock [hominoids] was forced by competition from life in the trees to feed on the sea-shores and to hunt for food, shell fish, sea-urchins etc., in the shallow waters off the coast. I suppose that they were forced into the water just as we have seen happen in so many other groups of terrestrial animals. I am imagining this happening in the warmer parts of the world, in the tropical seas where Man could stand being in the water for relatively long periods, that is, several hours at a stretch."
- Alister Hardy, 1960!!!!!!

Click to expand...

Anything crazy in that? Any mermaids in that???

Half a century later, and that's still what it is, and always was. A fucking beach ape! And yet all you know, is that it believes in fucking mermaids!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Could you please reject what's actually being suggested??? Instead of some comic book version, no one has ever posited??? If the whole concept really is so laughable, why in the bleeding hell are you rejecting something, that just isn't on the table?!?!?!

"Waterside hypotheses of human evolution assert that selection from wading, swimming and diving and procurement of food from aquatic habitats have significantly affected the evolution of the lineage leading to Homo sapiens as distinct from that leading to Pan."
- Algis Kuliukas, Elaine Morgan, 2013

pssst:
The pix was a joke. ( a take-off from your "What are you so afraid of"}
.........................
I have found no valid objection to the "aquatic ape theory" nor for a shoreline hunter and gatherer ancestor.
On the plus side:
Several midden piles containing mussel shells, including some quite ancient, have been identified in the archaeological record.
Not only would the shoreline be an excellent source of rich food, it also offers a handy defensive location where one might easily avoid/run from land based predators.

I would expect to find more support in ancient river deltas and ancient shorelines.
Unfortunately, for about 90% of our evolution over the recent 3 million years, most of the potential dig locations are currently under water

Personally, I no longer feel a responsibility for eradicating ignorance.

However:
Circa 40 years ago, I found myself, standing in front of the neanderthal tableau in the museum of natural history, lecturing a crowd on just why the exhibit was wrong.
But I was much younger then.

Clearly. You have nothing left but anger and religious devotion, neither of which is helping your case.

Click to expand...

Back when I tried desperately to have a civil dicussion about this with all you ignorant prats, that didn't exactly help it either. I guess it's just real fun to piss on people, and then say they smell?

You have been warned repeatedly about posting this stuff in the science forums on this site. Repeatedly.

Your link fails to actually discuss surfer's ear and is more intent on looking at the gait of early hominids. ....

Your link provides no evidence that this is an evolutionary trait, nor does it provide any evidence that this is a throwback that settles the "aquatic ape theory". At all.

Click to expand...

To summarise: your thread was closed for (a) posting pseudoscience to our Science sections, following previous warnings not to do so, (b) for posting off-topic in your own opening post to the thread; (c) for making the false claim that what you posted proves the aquatic ape theory. But mainly (a).

You started off with a premise that surfer's ear is proof of the aquatic ape. You did so by linking a ridiculous paper that provided nothing that could constitute as proof of an "aquatic ape hypothesis". It was laughable at best.

We have been down this road multiple times in the past. You had been told on numerous occasions to stop posting this bunk and rubbish hypothesis in the science sub-forums, you received warnings about it as well in the past. For example, back in September 2014, you were advised that this subject did not classify as a scientific subject and I explained why. You were banned for 3 days, shortly after, for overriding moderator's actions (I had moved your initial thread out of the science sub-forum and Stryder, who was an admin/senior staff at that point then moved it to the Cesspool), by attempting to reinstate the thread.

So you were made aware ever since then, that this subject matter was not welcome in the science subforum and you were told why. There have been multiple threads by you on this subject, and the response has been the same each time.

This latest reiteration is just more of the same that came before it.

You start off making a factual point, link to a story or article and declare that this is fact despite a gross lack of evidence in what you link. The pattern then continues with you trolling your own thread, flaming people and making other dubious claims and posting even more dubious pictures. And on and on you go with the same behaviour.

To the one, it is boring. To the other, your declaring that this is fact does not make it so. I could demand that I am the moon goddess. I can believe it as much as I want to and provide ample proof that in my own eyes, would equate to my being the moon goddess. That still would not make it true or real.

See where I am going with this?

You accuse me of fleeing science..

If you actually provided "science", then you might have a point. At best, one could say that I am fleeing outright pseudocrap. Which I would imagine most people in their right minds would flee.

So I will cut to the chase..

If you keep this rubbish up, you will be moderated. So I would rather you did not keep pushing and peddling this kind of utter tripe on this site.